The signals sent out from western capitals in response to Syria’s chemical attack are simultaneously both clear and confusing. It’s clear that political leaders accustomed to Middle East outrages are nonetheless appalled at the use of a weapon considered barbaric, and want to launch a punishing response. It’s equally clear that they don’t really now how to do that.

The U.S. military stands ready to strike Syria at once if President Barack Obama gives the order, Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said Tuesday as the United States prepared to formally declare that chemical weapons had been used in Syria’s civil war.

U.S. officials said the growing intelligence pointed strongly toward Bashar Assad’s government as the culprit in the chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs last week that activists say killed hundreds of people — a claim Assad called “preposterous.”

In terms of rhetoric, new lines have been crossed. John Kerry, the U.S. secretary of state, led the way. “The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity,” he raged. “By any standard it is inexcusable and … it is undeniable… This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.”

It’s fair to assume he’s sincere in his anger. In Mr. Kerry’s mind Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has done what the U.S. feared Saddam Hussein would do: unleash weapons that have been considered beyond the bounds of acceptability in warfare for almost a century. A world that can somehow accommodate itself to other atrocities still gets particularly upset when chemical weaponry comes into play. Mr. Assad has been killing his own people for two years now, but indiscriminately gassing women and children is a different kind of perversion. The powers in London, Washington and Paris want it to stop.

But they are paralyzed by the uncertainty of how, and to what effect. They aren’t even united in their understanding of the evidence. Mr. Kerry insists there is no question that Assad is the culprit, a position supported by John Baird, Canada’s Foreign Minister. If anti-Assad forces had been responsible, Mr. Baird argued, “the [Assad] government would have been very keen to get those inspectors in there as soon as possible.” Instead, the UN team sent to examine the evidence was subject to delays and sniper fire as they approached the scene.

Assad’s guilt is not universally accepted, however. In Britain, 81 MPs signed a letter demanding the government provide the legal justification for acting without a UN mandate and pressing for clear limits on any action. The letter was drafted by a Conservative MP, who says it can’t be assumed Assad is the guilty party.

“I’m going to need convincing,” said Andrew Bridgen, a Conservative lawmaker who drafted a letter to Cameron signed by 81 lawmakers. He said he was puzzled as to why the Syrian regime would choose to use chemical weapons at this point in the civil war, knowing the likely stakes.

“We need to hear there are limits to how our involvement could escalate,” Bridgen said “Our military is already stretched and battled-fatigued.”

While the West was debating retaliation on one front, israel was considering a response to four missiles fired at it from Lebanon. Two of the missiles hit a kibbutz. Israel says Hezbollah is probably responsible, “but no certainty.” The reason for the doubt is the proliferation of “rogue global jihad organizations” that are eager to show they too can make trouble.

“Syria’s disintegration has affected Lebanon and the deterrence balance that existed between us and Hezbullah is no longer tenable”, Shmuel Bar, the director of studies at the Institute of Policy and Strategy in Herzliya told The Media Line. “There are also other elements within the Lebanese theater which want to prove they are capable of causing problems.”

The same rogue elements in Lebanon are undoubtedly present in Syria, likely in bigger numbers, and wouldn’t hesitate to use chemical weapons if available. And if there are doubts about who is to blame, there are also doubts about what can be done. The BBC reported that “the most likely military response … would be a one-off or limited guided missile strikes on Syrian military targets fired from U.S. Navy warships.” Baird said Ottawa would work “in lockstep” with western allies, but also stressed that “the only way to halt the bloodshed in Syria is through a political solution.” That sounds more like a belief in talks of some sort, rather than one-off bombing runs, which would seem unlikely to have much impact on Assad in any case.

Canada’s Conservatives have sounded anything but eager to get involved in new military adventures, having only recently extricated Canadian troops from Afghanistan. Typically, the Harper government is also reluctant to open the issue to debate. While British Prime Minister David Cameron cut short a vacation and recalled Parliament to assess Britain’s options, Canada’s Conservatives have shown no inclination to do likewise, despite demands from NDP leader Thomas Mulcair that Parliament be consulted if intervention is considered.

Asked for a position on the Syrian situation on Monday, Mr. Mulcair sought instead to refight an old argument about the Tories’ refusal to seek a temporary seat on the UN Security Council.

“To see a government in the 21st century gassing its own citizens is an abomination, and the world has to move against that,” he said. “That should be done through the institutions of international law, in particular the United Nations [and] it’s a tragedy that Canada’s voice won’t be heard because we were never able to get a seat at the UN.”

Looking to the UN is no position at all. It has, as usual, proven helpless in dealing with Syria. With Russia using its veto to block any substantial action against Damascus, it’s hardly likely to situation would have been altered if Canada had chosen to contest one of two temporary seats in 2010, any more than did the presence of Portugal and Germany.

Russia’s intransigence is the reason Washington, with London and other allies, is now considering a non-UN approach. No one is pretending that a few missiles fired from a U.S. ship is likely to end the fighting, or even turn the tide. It’s more of a statement that the civilized world feels the need to act, and this is the best it can do. Not that it’s much.

In the wake of a Grammy Awards ceremony that disappointed many, from Kanye West to the masses on Twitter lamenting the state of pop music, a historical perspective is key. Few are better poised to offer one than Andy Kim.